Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Separate Probes By CID & ACB Into Alleged Theft Of Money Offered To Tirumala Temple

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed probes by the CID and the Anti-Corruption Bureau into the alleged theft of offerings made to the Tirumala Temple, after noting that there were serious lapses in the investigation. 

The court directed a Police Officer of DGP rank in CID to investigate the matter "including the role" of the Board and Officers of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), the role of the Investigating Officer and the defacto complainant and submit a Report in a sealed cover which shall also include the proposed action based on the Investigation Report. 

The court simultaneously directed that a police officer of DGP rank in Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) shall investigate into the assets (movable and immovable including bank accounts) possessed/ acquired by the accused public servant C.V. Ravi Kumar, working as Supervisor in Parakamani (ritual of counting donations), and his family including all kinds of alienations by him and members of his family by way of registrations or otherwise.

The court directed that the possession/acquisition of the assets shall be investigated from the point of view of the 'known sources of income of C.V. Ravi Kumar and his family.'

Justice GR Prasad in his order noted:

"This Court, prima-facie, noticed that the statutory provisions, statutory procedures and several other administrative procedures have been given a complete go-bye to ensure that a heavy-lid is placed on the criminal proceeding with a view to give a quietus as expeditiously as possible for the reasons best known to several persons/authorities involved in the entire process. Whether these events have taken place out of gross negligence and non-application of mind of the authorities or due to active connivance and foul-play is a thing which requires very serious investigation in the opinion of this Court". 

It noted that the accused CV Ravi Kumar a 'public servant' was in the service of Parakamani for about 38 years. In the supervisory capacity, the accused was entrusted with responsibility of preventing theft, misuse or misappropriation of the offerings/gifts made by the devotees.

The court noted that the "Supervisor himself had committed the offence of theft and charged as such".

It said that the Investigating Officer was required to charge the accused under Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) of IPC which is a non-compoundable offence but, the IO had charged the accused only under Sections 379 (theft) & 381(theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master) which are compoundable offences. It said:

"The charge sheet was also filed on 30.05.2023 charged under Sections 379 & 381 of IPC. The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati has taken cognizance on 31.05.2023 i.e., on the next date and issued summons to the accused and posted the matter to the following date i.e., 01.06.2023. At this stage, the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati is endowed with the indispensable responsibility of 'application of mind' to see whether proper charges have been laid against the accused or not (law is well settled)...As stated earlier that, right at the stage of commencing the investigation itself, it is elementary on the part of the Investigating Officer and that it is incumbent on the part of the Judicial Officer at the stage of taking cognizance to ensure that the accused shall be charged under Section 409 of IPC. In this regard, this Court is of the prima-facie opinion that there is a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer as well as the Presiding Officer. In the opinion of this Court, this omission is a serious lapse"

The court noted that the accused was also not arrested; instead the IO had only issued notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. It noted that the Case Dairy did not disclose details of the investigation regarding assets (movable and immovable) possessed by the accused.

"This proves that no investigation, either by the Crime Branch or by the Anti Corruption Bureau, had been undertaken in this direction. The chronology of events described hereinabove would also indicate that the entire criminal proceedings were brought to compromise/conclusion by 01.06.2023 and the recording of compromise before the 'Lok Adalat' on 09.09.2023 was just a 'residual formality'," the court added. 

Background

A complaint was registered by a TTD official in 2023 for theft from Parakamani and a case was registered against C.V. Ravi Kumar. It is alleged that the accused and his wife offered and gifted certain immovable properties to TTD worth Rs.14.5 Crores. 

Charge Sheet was filed under IPC Sections 379  and 381 before the Magistrate Court. 

The Magistrate took 'cognizance' and issued summons to the accused only under Sections 379 & 381 of IPC. Thereafter the accused as well as the defacto complainant Sri Y. Satish Kumar were present before the Court, filed a Joint Memo reporting that they voluntarily compounded the case.

The magistrate court recorded the compromise despite the fact that the 'defacto complainant' is not the owner of the property involved in the case.

Later a Member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council addressed a complaint to the TTD about the Parakamani theft. Subsequently the matter reached the high court. 

Case title: M SREENIVASULU v/s THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WRIT PETITION NO: 1294 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order